Ships & Modules

You know that that is one Tornado with 2 shots.
And they can do it almost everywhere in Hi-sec.
So you are killed by one ship and you ****** your mining yield - nice one.

Very passionate. Also ridiculously off-topic and very wrong in pretty much every way imaginable.

It still doesn't make numbers a factor in balance. You don't set the stats on a ship based on how many will be used in an engagement because you cannot know or control that — it's infinitely variable, and the usage number is determined by the balance, so you'd enter an uncontrollable feedback loop. It's very simple — see if you can follow:

If numbers were a factor in balance, the reasoning would go like this:

“We know that only one ship of this type will be used for every 100 players in a fleet. We will therefore make it very powerful so that it balances out that small number. Commonness 1/n → power factor n.”

Obviously, this is a completely backwards way of balancing ships, and no-one in their right mind does that for the simple reason that it doesn't work: what will happen is that, instead of 1/100 players using that 100:1 power ratio ship, all one hundred players will use it because the “numbers balance” has decided that it needs to be overpowered to counterbalance its low usage. Congratulations — instant imbalanced ships in instantly imbalanced numbers.

Same goes for cost. If cost was a factor in balance, the reasoning would be:

“We have set the price for ÜberRokh to 50bn ISK. This means we have to make it very powerful to balance out that high cost, so let's set the power factor to 9001”… and we all know where that reasoning leads and the balancing headache it causes (simply because you can't use cost to counterbalance power that way — it just doesn't work).

Instead, you do the opposite: “Hmm… the ÜberRokh isn't being used even though we think it's totally sweet. Maybe if we adjust the price, people will think it's a bit more worth-while. Oh wow! Look, it worked, yay!”

…or maybe it's just being misused. It's not so much outdated as just horribly mistreated (e.g. it's commonly not fitted with a proper tank). It's like people going from HACs to HICs for their L4s because “hey, it's a T2 cruiser that tanks even more, so it should be even better” — never mind that its purpose is something drastically different for a completely different and for a different region of space entirely.

In fact… I'll see if I can find that old F&I post where this was discussed…

It is how CCP are. They will not care about what you think is good for their game's balance. You can argue about it or deny it as long as you want. It is not going to change them.

I fit my usual Hulk for yield and cargo space with a roid scanner.

I've never once been ganked, because I mine at the keyboard and watch local and even use the d-scanner to keep an eye on things around me. I'll take that risk because tanking a Hulk at the expense of efficiency when you are doing something that disgustingly boring is a waste of time to me.

If I get ganked, that's my fault, and I accept that.

yes but you can replace said covetor in no time so it doesnt matter....

just playing devil's advocate, I never tank my hulk and have never been killed OR attempted a gank on.
Then again I mine where there arent ever people and when ppl show up, I move on to a system where there arent people lol

Mining is already looking to be a lot more profitable now more than ever, stop begging for a buff and learn how to tank your ships.

"They are also far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space."

That says defense equipped in expectation of combat to me.

The same way it's not a combat ship, and the same way no other ship can mine anywhere near the amount of ore that it is capable of.

In EVE is every ship exposed to combat if you want to or not. To have ships that are particularly weak at it is what makes this a joke.

Has his topic been brought to the CSM already?